[nfbwatlk] Alert about increase in audible traffic signals
Alco Canfield
amcanfield at comcast.net
Mon Sep 24 21:48:40 CDT 2007
Well, as I said, they need to make listening to traffic their first
priority. The audible is just a bonus but can never replace listening to
parallel traffic and that needs to be emphasized.
Alco
-----Original Message-----
From: nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Freeman
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 7:30 PM
To: amcanfield at comcast.net; NFB of Washington Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [nfbwatlk] Alert about increase in audible traffic signals
Is it not disingenuous to "give people the courage to travel" by giving
them the notion that they are safer when, in fact, they are not?
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Alco Canfield
To: 'NFB of Washington Talk Mailing List'
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [nfbwatlk] Alert about increase in audible traffic
signals
Hi, Dean,
I appreciate your comments. As I said in an earlier post, for those
really
short lights, I think audible signals are a real boon. I have been
thinking
about this a lot, and it occurs to me that older people or those who
have
recently experienced vision loss might choose to venture out more
because of
these signals. If audible signals give fearful people the courage to
travel,
they have served a good purpose
Audible signal success will depend upon the planning that goes into
their
installation.
Traffic has gotten worse and many people using cell phones are not
paying
attention to traffic lights or pedestrians.
Having been hit by a car (not my fault, but you can be dead right), I
had to
force myself for years to cross busy intersections. I will admit that
I am
not as adventurous as I used to be re travel.
I am glad you are still getting out there. I personally don't see the
need
for these signals on straight forward intersections, but I can
appreciate
their value on more complex crossings.
Continue to comment.
Alco
-----Original Message-----
From: nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On
Behalf Of Dean Martineau
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 7:21 AM
To: 'NFB of Washington Talk Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [nfbwatlk] Alert about increase in audible traffic
signals
I like audio traffic signals, and believe some of the blanket
criticism of
them is not well informed.
I have lived in foreign countries, travel to many Us cities. I go
lots of
places. And doing so for me is a struggle. Depending on what I'm
carrying,
as well as many other factors I can't ascertain, straight lines and
being
sure about traffic patterns happen, or they don't. I've been as
trained as
opportunities allowed. Maybe a year of immersion in mobility training
would
help, but I'm not convinced, and in any event, it isn't going to
happen for
many reasons. So here I am, and here, I submit, are a lot of other,
many of
whom lack my training and perhaps some other attributes as well.
So it is that when I encounter an audio signal, I breathe a little
easier.
I have a piece of environmental information I can use.
Some of the comments on this subject are really humorous. As if a
person is
going to ignore traffic and just focus on an audio signal! So do we
assume
that sighted travelers are staring fixedly at the walk signal and
disregarding the rest of the environment? We should outlaw the walk
signals
as public dangers! After all, all those sighted people are getting
killed
because they aren't watching the traffic!
Near my home is an intersection where the light is short going in my
direction. The walk signal comes on a few seconds before the parallel
traffic starts, as is typical. Those few extra seconds would be very
useful
to be able to use to cross, and even more so because sometimes there
is not
parallel traffic. So I look very impressive as a blind person,
standing
there while the walk signal is on, when there isn't parallel traffic.
I understand that I am preaching to the anti-choir here, and that a
few
competent travelers, who are among those who set organizational
philosophy,
make all the decisions. It is unfortunate that collaboration can't
occur to
support installation of some audible signals at certain intersections
for
the benefit of some of us horrible, bad, under-indoctrinated people
who
would love to have walk signals just like sighted people have, and for
whom
having such signals would probably enhance our safety. In my
experience,
having audible signals, even the coo-coo ones that are not the best
choice
does not impair my ability to listen for people who might run the red
light.
And I'm sure that a goodly number of folks with vision loss of one
degree or
another would appreciate advances in this area if they were actually
to be
consulted.
Note that I have traveled for decades without audible signals and will
continue to do so. I also give the party line to those who express
the
belief that I need audible signals to travel. But in fact, I would
love
more audible signals, so I could tell parallel traffic from turn
traffic on
those days when I can't seem to do it very well myself, or for
intersections
like the one I described earlier. And I know the vocal ones here will
unitedly scream their rejection and ridicule of my feelings, but some
less
vocal members will agree and feel slightly affirmed. It's a little
like
mandatory or automatic calling of bus stops. Yes, I can survive
without
them, but I, and a lot of silent and invisible people, benefit from
them.
Dean
_______________________________________________
nfbwatlk mailing list
nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk
__________ NOD32 2547 (20070924) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
_______________________________________________
nfbwatlk mailing list
nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk
__________ NOD32 2548 (20070924) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
More information about the nfbwatlk
mailing list